474 F.2d 739 (9th Cir. 1973), 72-1469, Lai Haw Wong v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
|Citation:||474 F.2d 739|
|Party Name:||LAI HAW WONG et al., Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.|
|Case Date:||February 28, 1973|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
Michael W. Roberts (argued), Albert C. Lum, of Simmons & Ritchie, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner.
Carolyn M. Reynolds, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Frederick M. Brosio, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., William D. Keller, U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., Henry E. Peterson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Stephen Suffin, Atty., I&NS, San Francisco, Cal., Joseph Surreck, Regional Counsel, I&NS, San Pedro, Cal., George K. Rosenberg, Dist. Director, I&NS, Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent.
Before CHAMBERS and CHOY, Circuit Judges, and ENRIGHT, [*] District Judge.
CHOY, Circuit Judge:
Lai Haw Wong (Mrs. Wong) and her two minor sons, Foo and Fat, appeal a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) holding them deportable under Section 241(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(1). Another son, Lip, appeals from the Board's denial of a petition to admit him as the son of a lawfully admitted permanent resident, Mrs. Wong. We affirm.
Mrs. Wong, Foo and Fat were admitted into the United States in March, 1969 under a derivative fourth preference visa through Wong Kam Chow, their husband and father, to whom a fourth preference visa had been issued in 1968. Mr. Wong was never admitted into this country as he was convicted on a narcotics charge before he could leave Hong Kong. The third son, Lip, was paroled into the United States, also in March 1969 on a status dependent upon the status of Mrs. Wong.
A special inquiry officer heard the deportation proceedings which were instituted against Mrs. Wong alone in October, 1969. 1 He ruled that she was not deportable under 8 U.S.C. § 1251(f) 2 (hereinafter section 241(f) because she was the parent of two children who had been admitted for permanent residence albeit under the mistaken belief that they were accompanying or joining their father here. He certified his decision to the Board because of the novelty of the issue involved.
While the certified question was pending before the Board, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (the INS) brought deportation proceedings against Foo and Fat, and moved to reopen Mrs. Wong's deportation case and to consolidate the three deportation matters. The Board granted the reopening and the consolidation pointing out that the special inquiry officer's decision as to Mrs. Wong having been certified was not a final action but only a suggested solution.
The special inquiry officer, on reopening, ruled that Mrs. Wong, Foo and Fat (appellants) held invalid preference immigrant visas since they did not accompany or join their husband and father and so were deportable. Appellants contend that they were entitled to section 241(f) relief since at one time, no matter how briefly, there was a person who was a lawful permanent resident alien with whom they had the necessary relationship; i. e., Mrs. Wong's status was supported by the admission of Foo...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP